Hi,
I'd agree with Jodi: the items below were not that bad, and quite relevant for the two cases (Digital Text Repository and Publishing 20th Century Press Archives) I am shepherding.
If you want to add stuff, here's the result of my thinking about it (not so much edited)
Missing Vocabularies
Data incompatibilities or lacks
* Use cases that look similar focus in fact on different items (books vs. work)
* Not a lack, but abundance of data!
* Many vocabularies (value vocabularies and metadata element sets alike) to manipulate : cases address categories (usual persons, places, subjects, but also stuff like technical aspects of digitization results)
* Complex data (hierarchical objects)
-> creates barriers for end users and implementers (development cost on top of complex data per se, computational cost at run-time, figuring out what to present users with)
Community guidance/organization issues
* Choice of relevant datasets/value vocabularies to perform data enrichment through linking
* Ability of users to perform such linking in an efficient way
* Persistence of external sources used inlinking
Technology availability/questions
* difficulty to represent order in RDF (a crucial point of aggregates)
* provenance is needed when it comes to sharing data (as these cases aggregate data from other sources, some of it may find their way in the data they re-distribute)
* Availability and performance of automatic linking tools (cf Vocabulary alignment cluster)
* Mapping from RDF data to other formats (e.g. METS-MODS XML) used by modultes using in composite environments
* Creating/re-using identifiers that are consensual in broad communities
Of course UC owners (Asaf and Joachim) are welcome to send feedback!
Antoine
>
> On 25 Jan 2011, at 12:37, Mark van Assem wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm having some trouble curating the Digital Objects section on Problems and Limitations [1].
>>
>> Could I ask the UC shepherds involved, Gordon, Antoine, "Andras" [2] (who is this?), Peter Murray, William, Uldis Bojars to help out?
>>
>>
>>
>> ---- Enhanced Publications Cluster ----
>>
>> I had some contact with the owners of the UC I'm shepherding (Enhanced Publications), and they have problems which are hard to put directly in the DO Cluster page, because they are more generic.
>
> Hmm. I think these issues you mention can be listed directly in the DO page as problems and limitations -- they seem quite similar to the other list of problems and limitations we've seen.
>
> I don't think that generic is a problem in this case.
>
>> Summary from a long email in Dutch:
>>
>> - which URIs to use for e.g. persons, objects, organizations
>> - little knowledge on SemWeb tech, hard to get trained personnel
>> - SemWeb tools are not mature, minimalist, spartan
>>
>> - bad quality of ontologies like FOAF; things missing or strangely implemented
>> - inverse properties missing; makes it difficult to display info on an object
>> - overlap in ontologies; which to use?
>> - missing properties -> islands of unconnected groups of resources.
>>
>> I will ask them to provide some more details.
>
> I'm not sure that further details are going to help us; these problems seem common and clear.
>
> -Jodi
>
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>>
>> [1]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Cluster_Digital_Objects#Problems_and_Limitations
>>
>> [2]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Use_Cases#Cluster:_Digital_objects
>>
>
>